Book of Mormon Criticism of Calvin

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Abinadi and "burning heretics at the stake," Mark Wright and Terry Hull offered this a while back, noting much more than the notable fact that the death of Abinadi does not use the word "stake."

Quote

The Book of Mormon then recounts in brevity the death of Abinadi: “And it came to pass that they took him and bound him, and scourged his skin with faggots, yea, even unto death” (Mosiah 17:13). Traditional interpretations of this event focus primarily on the assumption that Abinadi was tied to a stake and burned, much in line with European and early American traditions. Note, however, that no stake4 is mentioned; rather, we are given crucial clues that link Abinadi’s manner of death to far more sinister means of torture and execution widely practiced in Mesoamerica and among North American Native American groups: death by beating with firebrands.

Let us first analyze the three key aspects of his manner of death mentioned in verse 13: (1) he is “bound” with cords, (2) they “scourged his skin with faggots,” and (3) it was “even unto death.” In (1), Abinadi is restrained to facilitate his torture. In (2), the phrase “scourged his skin with faggots” is of considerable importance in accurately identifying the method used to kill Abinadi. As Gardner has earlier noted, the verb “scourge” in Joseph Smith’s day meant “‘to whip severely’ or ‘to punish with severity.’”5 In Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary of the English language, it means “to whip severely; to lash,” but also “to afflict greatly; to harass, torment or injure.”6 What is clear is that “whipping,” “lashing,” or “tormenting” is a major factor contributing to the trauma that would eventually take Abinadi’s life.7

The object that was used in the beating was a faggot, which in 1828 (spelled as “fagot”) means what it does in English today—“a bundle of sticks, twigs or small branches of trees.”8 According to the text, the whipping of Abinadi with bundles of sticks is, in addition to the element of fire, what contributed to Abinadi’s death. Note again there is no mention of being burned at the stake as the means of death.9

https://www.ldsliving.com/why-abinadi-might-not-have-died-the-way-we-think-he-did-what-it-teaches-us-about-his-faith/s/88648

They also describe forms of torture known in North America, among the Aztecs, and the Ancient Maya.

Quote

Firebrands for the ancient Maya were made of bundles of highly flammable pine splinters, which were closely connected to ritual practice as part of ceremonial paraphernalia.18 Pine firebrands were also commonly associated with the burning of incense, as well as the burning of captives. At the site of Tohcok in Campeche, a mural on a doorjamb depicts a captive lying dead, face down on a large, spiked incense burner. He is disemboweled, and pine torches are shown in flames on his back.

Another example of a disemboweled individual has remarkable parallels to the details prophesied by Abinadi. The figurine from the island of Jaina in Campeche depicts a man screaming out both in pain from the disembowelment and also for the fact that he has wood (perhaps pine) sticks strapped to his back in preparation for immolation. Abinadi prophesied to Noah and his people that they would “have burdens lashed upon their backs” (Mosiah 12:5, emphasis added) and that they would “suffer . . . the pains of death by fire” (Mosiah 17:18). The “lashing” of the “burdens”19 (possibly fire sticks20) to their backs could be an allusion to a death similar to that depicted by this Jaina figurine.

The consistent appearance of pine and pine torches in scenes of firebrand torture is significant. The Aztecs used specifically pine sticks for their flogging punishments.21 It is important to note that pine torches are resinous and were often soaked in additional resin to ensure they would burn longer.22 Furthermore, pine torches drip pitch as they burn, which adds a further element of pain when considered in the context of scourging—the introduction of hot pine pitch into open wounds and burns.23 If pine torches were those used on Abinadi, which is highly likely in light of the ethnographic record, then his wounds may too have had increased trauma from heated, dripping pine pitch.

In ancient Mesoamerica, there is a mythological antecedent for firebrand torture and killing of captives that likely informed its use by Maya elite, especially at the site of Naranjo, Guatemala.24 A number of scenes on pottery vessels show this otherwise unknown myth from distant Maya tradition, although the actors themselves are well known, even into colonial times. On vessel K4598, a jaguar deity from the underworld is shown seated on a stone throne, which functions in this case as the stand or scaffold, stripped of his finery, with his arms tied tightly behind his back. To his right stands one of the Hero Twins (either Junapu or Xblanque) known from the Popol Vuh, the colonial account of Maya creation mythology that has deep roots into Early Classic Maya times. To the jaguar deity’s left is the other Hero Twin, both of whom are holding flaming firebrands in the act of scorching the jaguar deity. Further to the right of the scene stands the Hero Twins’ father, Junajaw, who bears an armful of backup firebrands for the twins to continue their lengthy25 torture of the jaguar god.

The word "stake" does occur twice in the Book of Mormon, but with a rather different context and meaning, metaphorically tent stakes.  3 Nephi 22 quotes Isaiah 54. 

Quote

Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations; spare not, lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes;

Moroni 10 has this:

Quote

And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled.

In the other notable depiction of death by fire, besides those of Abinadi and Noah, the account in Alma 14, we also have no mention of stakes,

Quote

And they brought their wives and children together, and whosoever believed or had been taught to believe in the word of God they caused that they should be cast into the fire; and they also brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire.

9 And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire.

The important thing about reading and contextualizing carefully is so can see what they saw, rather than what we imagine.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily visiting Mountain View, CA

Edited January 17, 2023 by Kevin Christensen

[JarMan]

26 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Abinadi and "burning heretics at the stake," Mark Wright and Terry Hull offered this a while back, noting much more than the notable fact that the death of Abinadi does not use the word "stake."

https://www.ldsliving.com/why-abinadi-might-not-have-died-the-way-we-think-he-did-what-it-teaches-us-about-his-faith/s/88648

They also describe forms of torture known in North America, among the Aztecs, and the Ancient Maya.

The word "stake" does occur twice in the Book of Mormon, but with a rather different context and meaning, metaphorically tent stakes.  3 Nephi 22 quotes Isaiah 54. 

Moroni 10 has this:

In the other notable depiction of death by fire, besides those of Abinadi and Noah, the account in Alma 14, we also have no mention of stakes,

The import thing about reading and contextualizing carefully is so can see what they saw, rather than what we imagine.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Temporarily visiting Mountain View, CA

I take Skousen's view that "scourged" here is actually "scorched" but was misheard by the scribe. The use of faggots and the context makes it clear what was happening.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

Kudos to you, sir, for recognizing the Credo in the opening slide. I wasn't sure if that would be recognized.

I had to memorize it in Latin as kid, and we genuflected where the words "homo factus est" are spoken.

Incidentally the translation of "factus" raises some interesting questions, in my opinion, perhaps favoring an LDS interpretation of how the Incarnation was seen by those who wrote it.

I'm not enough of a Latin scholar to get into it at the moment, but there has been some discussion around that issue.

[Bernard Gui]

I’ve always suspected that there was a nefarious use for bassoons.

[Nevo]

15 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Abinadi and "burning heretics at the stake," Mark Wright and Kerry Hull offered this a while back, noting much more than the notable fact that the death of Abinadi does not use the word "stake."

15 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

The word "stake" does occur twice in the Book of Mormon, but with a rather different context and meaning, metaphorically tent stakes.  3 Nephi 22 quotes Isaiah 54. 

15 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

In the other notable depiction of death by fire, besides those of Abinadi and Noah, the account in Alma 14, we also have no mention of stakes

This point about stakes is somewhat undermined by the authors' admission in footnote 9 that it is "likely that Abinadi was bound to a structure or a 'stake.'" (After all, it's a big ask for a victim to stand perfectly still while lit firebrands are applied to their skin for hours at a time.)

Regarding the topic of the thread, I'm with Ben. The notion that King Noah is a stand-in for John Calvin is demonstrably wrong. Dan Vogel has shown convincingly that King Noah is a composite character based on Isaac Hale and Joseph Smith Sr. (Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 177)

Edited January 17, 2023 by Nevo

[The Nehor]

It is like eight minutes in before you say what the video is about. Most people will have turned it off by then.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Nevo said:

Regarding the topic of the thread, I'm with Ben. The notion that King Noah is a stand-in for John Calvin is demonstrably wrong.

Well, demonstrate why it's wrong, then.

[JarMan]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is like eight minutes in before you say what the video is about. Most people will have turned it off by then.

Thanks for the frank feedback.

[Benjamin McGuire]

  

On 1/16/2023 at 6:44 PM, JarMan said:

So far all I've seen are your typical canned responses. I'm beginning to think you didn't watch the video very carefully.

Look, the abuse of comparisons and discussions about better way to engage these kinds of issues are not uncommon. There are lots of claims about borrowing in literature and about how texts can refer to larger issues or historical topics. There are even a lot of discussions about how authors try to engage in this sort of criticism. And so we start with this sort of "canned response". But don't think that I don't have an understanding of these issues (I have published on the subject). The challenge is that you don't engage the issues that have been raised about your approach. So I ask a series of questions that are routinely asked. And I already know that you haven't addressed these issues (and that you aren't even aware of them) because you mention things like this: "What we want to know is what the author of the text was thinking." We call this being a mind-reader - and it simply doesn't happen. No text can ever tell us what it's author was thinking. We can only discuss the text's rhetoric and what the author may or may not have been trying to convey.

Then again (and I have published on this too), we routinely misread texts. We misunderstand them. This is even more likely when we start discussing a meaning of a text that is allegorical or symbolic. Such readings are (as I noted earlier) as much about the reader as it is about the author. I'll say a bit more about this in a minute - but, the question has to be asked - how can you tell if your reading is simply a reflection of your own presuppositions as opposed to what the author's intentions were? If you engage in the intentional fallacy - that is, if you start by creating a mental model of an author and then use that model to try and derive meaning from the text - then you are almost certainly going down the wrong trail.

On 1/16/2023 at 6:44 PM, JarMan said:

And if what you say is true, there should be lots of stories that look like Noah and Abinadi. But there aren't.

But there are. And this is part of the interesting discussion that I observe in your video and in your comments. One of the hallmarks of parallelomania is that a text gets condensed to a few ideas that are then painted as being the most important parts of the discussion. So when I say that there are lots of stories that look like Noah and Abinadi, your response (at least as I predict it - and as I have experienced it in other discussions of this sort) is for you to start listing the exact parallels that you find in the Book of Mormon text and the narratives that you suppose there is a connection to - and then you want me to reproduce texts/narratives with those exact parallels. But, I don't have to provide those exact parallels - I just have to provide texts that share similar parallels (in terms of quantity and detail). And this is fairly easy to do. But my examples will be just as meaningless as yours - because the process of conflating traditions in this way is flawed.

On 1/16/2023 at 6:44 PM, JarMan said:

Many executions have occurred for many reasons. But I'm not talking about any execution. I'm talking about one where a man teaching true doctrine was burned at the stake by an evil autocrat.

See, here you demand detail - but even in this rather over generalized version of the narratives we see you playing games to make them sound more alike. Who is an evil autocrat? Certainly Noah fits this title. Calvin? Not so much. And Abinadi certainly wasn't burned at the stake.

On 1/16/2023 at 6:44 PM, JarMan said:

The motive was a perceived threat to his power and personal dislike for the "heretic" whose heresy was nothing more than a pretext to punish a critic. And the claimed heresy is the same in both cases. It's undeniable that the general stories are the same. The author could have easily stopped there and gotten his point across. But he didn't. Many of the details are similar, as well, including details about the characters, the trial proceedings and doctrinal issues at play. The author wanted to provide enough details to make sure we knew who he was criticizing. The historical events even have an "Alma" that emerges in the aftermath.

And of course, none of this is terribly accurate in my perspective. I say this because Abinadi's teachings are not very close to the teachings of Servetus. The doctrinal issues are quite different. The legal questions are different. The crimes are different. And so on.

I am reminded at this point of a list written by Alexander Lindey in his book Plagiarism and Originality. He listed 10 vices of the parallel hunter - bad methods that they engage in:

Quote

1. Any method of comparison which lists and underscores similarities and suppresses or minimizes differences is necessarily misleading.
2. Parallels are too readily susceptible of manipulation. Superficial resemblances may be made to appear as of the essence.
3. Parallel-hunters do not, as a rule, set out to be truthful and impartial. They are hell-bent on proving a point.
4. Parallel-hunting is predicated on the use of lowest common denominators. Virtually all literature, even the most original, can be reduced to such terms, and thereby shown to be unoriginal. So viewed, Mark Twain’s The Prince and the Pauper plagiarizes ****ens’ David Copperfield. Both deal with England, both describe the slums of London, both see their hero exalted beyond his original station. To regard any two books in this light, however, is to ignore every factor that differentiates one man’s thoughts, reactions and literary expression from another’s.
5. Parallel columns operate piecemeal. They wrench phrases and passages out of context. A product of the imagination is indivisible. It depends on totality of effect. To remove details from their setting is to falsify them.
6. Parallels fail to indicate the proportion which the purportedly borrowed material bears to the sum total of the source, or to the whole of the new work. Without such information a just appraisal is impossible.
7. The practitioners of the technique resort too often to sleight of hand. They employ language, not to record facts or to describe things accurately, but as props in a rhetorical hocus-pocus which, by describing different things in identical words, appears to make them magically alike.
8. A double-column analysis is a dissection. An autopsy will reveal a great deal about a cadaver, but very little about the spirit of the man who once inhabited it.
9. Most parallels rest on the assumption that if two successive things are similar, the second one was copied from the first. This assumption disregards all the other possible causes of similarity.
Whatever his vices or virtues, the parallel-hunter is a hardy species. He is destined, as someone had said, to persist until Judgment Day, when he will doubtless find resemblances in the very warrant that consigns him to the nether regions.

I can see examples of these problems in your comments.

On 1/16/2023 at 6:44 PM, JarMan said:

Burning heretics at the stake is really only detailed in medieval/early modern Christianity. Off the bat this makes the BOM story anachronistic.

There is no burning at the stake in the Book of Mormon. This is your interpretation overlaid onto the text. (Lindey vice number 7).

On 1/16/2023 at 6:44 PM, JarMan said:

Me, as far as I can tell.

That you are the first to notice this means that either the modern author of the text was incompetent as a writer (he failed to get his idea across to his readers for nearly two centuries) or that you are creating a reading that fits your own worldview and was unintended by the author. I mean, either one is possible I suppose.

On 1/16/2023 at 6:44 PM, JarMan said:

Reader reception has very little to do with my theory because I don't believe 19th Century America was the intended audience. A Western European person of, say, 1640 may have recognized Calvin and Servetus in this story--particularly if that person had been persecuted by Calvinists. But even modern readers should be able to see the criticism of Calvinist doctrine in the BOM, particularly Calvinist soteriology. If you adjust your expectations of the text by about 200 years and an ocean, stories like this in the Book of Mormon start to make a lot of sense.

This is bizarre from my perspective because the text of the Book of Mormon is clearly a 19th century text. It couldn't be significantly earlier because it contains language that can be used to put an earliest date on it (and it isn't anywhere near 1640). The EModE theory doesn't cover the entire text of the Book of Mormon.

But this brings up a final issue. The Book of Mormon is not particularly opposed to Calvanism. Consider, for example, the fact that the Book of Mormon denies absolute agency for humanity. This means in some ways it is decidedly friendly to some aspects of Calvanism. This is part of the reason why I also noted that we were going to have some real disagreements about the interpretation of the text. The fact that I can interpret the text in key areas for your theory differently than you do does call into question that theory as much as the problem of alternate reasonable interpretations of the Noah-Abinadi narratives.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Nevo]

3 hours ago, JarMan said:

Well, demonstrate why it's wrong, then.

Sorry, I was making a lame joke (Noah can't be John Calvin because he's Isaac Hale / Joseph Smith Sr).

But it's true that I don't find your theory convincing. King Noah is noted in the Book of Mormon for his many wives and concubines, riotous living, wine-bibbing, love of riches, idolatry, indolence, and oppressive taxation. John Calvin was a famously austere character, Noah's opposite in just about every way. So I don't see it.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 Look, the abuse of comparisons and discussions about better way to engage these kinds of issues are not uncommon. There are lots of claims about borrowing in literature and about how texts can refer to larger issues or historical topics. There are even a lot of discussions about how authors try to engage in this sort of criticism. And so we start with this sort of "canned response". But don't think that I don't have an understanding of these issues (I have published on the subject). The challenge is that you don't engage the issues that have been raised about your approach. So I ask a series of questions that are routinely asked. And I already know that you haven't addressed these issues (and that you aren't even aware of them) because you mention things like this: "What we want to know is what the author of the text was thinking." We call this being a mind-reader - and it simply doesn't happen. No text can ever tell us what it's author was thinking. We can only discuss the text's rhetoric and what the author may or may not have been trying to convey.

I've been a member of this board for a long time. I don't think as long as you, Ben, but I remember early on well over a decade ago you came on here and made some comments--I can't remember what about--but I was really impressed. Over the years I've seen a lot of impressive responses from other apologetic types like Brant Gardner and Daniel Peterson when they used to participate. There are others, as well. The point is that I've seen the criticisms and I've seen the responses regarding a host of topics including proposed parallels. Heck, I often gave the responses. So I'm well aware of the baseline criticism against parallels. As a result, I've kept those things in mind as I've done my research. Nobody is immune to confirmation bias and other similar biases, but I would suggest that instead of assuming them in me, you instead assume that I'm a careful researcher who has tried his best to account for such things. I think that will help us have a more productive discussion.

Regarding authorial intent, of course we can only discuss what an author may or may not have been trying to convey. I wasn't being literal.  I do have a proposed 17th Century author in mind who happened to have a major bone to pick with Calvinism. To me, this is much more relevant than what modern readers think about the text. It's kind of like the difference between how an ancient Jew would have read the OT vs how modern Christians read the OT (but with a much smaller gap). If we want to talk about authorial intent in the OT we try to understand how an ancient Jew read the text. A modern Christian's reading is all but irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 Then again (and I have published on this too), we routinely misread texts. We misunderstand them. This is even more likely when we start discussing a meaning of a text that is allegorical or symbolic. Such readings are (as I noted earlier) as much about the reader as it is about the author. I'll say a bit more about this in a minute - but, the question has to be asked - how can you tell if your reading is simply a reflection of your own presuppositions as opposed to what the author's intentions were? If you engage in the intentional fallacy - that is, if you start by creating a mental model of an author and then use that model to try and derive meaning from the text - then you are almost certainly going down the wrong trail.

You are making assumptions about my approach that I don't think are warranted. I would ask that you assume both a good faith effort and careful work on my part.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But there are. And this is part of the interesting discussion that I observe in your video and in your comments. One of the hallmarks of parallelomania is that a text gets condensed to a few ideas that are then painted as being the most important parts of the discussion. So when I say that there are lots of stories that look like Noah and Abinadi, your response (at least as I predict it - and as I have experienced it in other discussions of this sort) is for you to start listing the exact parallels that you find in the Book of Mormon text and the narratives that you suppose there is a connection to - and then you want me to reproduce texts/narratives with those exact parallels. But, I don't have to provide those exact parallels - I just have to provide texts that share similar parallels (in terms of quantity and detail). And this is fairly easy to do. But my examples will be just as meaningless as yours - because the process of conflating traditions in this way is flawed.

Here again you are supposing what I am doing or will do. You assume from the start that this discussion will be like one of dozens you and others have had on this board (many of which I've witnessed or been a part of). I'm interested in your criticisms, but since we are reading each other's minds here, I already know what your canned responses are going to be. It will be constructive for me if you would ditch the usual stuff and provide some specific and substantive comments on my work. I get that parallelomania is an easy strawman to burn, but I can already do that myself.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 See, here you demand detail - but even in this rather over generalized version of the narratives we see you playing games to make them sound more alike. Who is an evil autocrat? Certainly Noah fits this title. Calvin? Not so much. And Abinadi certainly wasn't burned at the stake.

It's true that modern histories typically don't portray Calvin as evil or autocratic. However, his early modern critics portrayed him, well, about like the Book of Mormon portrays Noah. He had lots of enemies and the caricature we know as Noah is a pretty good match for the caricature of Calvin that his contemporaries and near contemporaries had for him.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And of course, none of this is terribly accurate in my perspective. I say this because Abinadi's teachings are not very close to the teachings of Servetus. The doctrinal issues are quite different. The legal questions are different. The crimes are different. And so on.

You're not right about any of this. There are at least half a dozen online biographies out there for Servetus. We even have translations of lots of Servetus' writings. And there is a lot of commentary on these topics that span over 450 years. I've spent several months researching this information. Rather than dismissing things out of hand because you did a quick google search, it would be more helpful if you pointed out specific things you see a problem with. This will give me an opportunity to share some of the research I have done.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 I am reminded at this point of a list written by Alexander Lindey in his book Plagiarism and Originality. He listed 10 vices of the parallel hunter - bad methods that they engage in:

I can see examples of these problems in your comments.

You are burning a strawman, here, and making generalizations about my work. Specifics about my work would be appreciated.

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 There is no burning at the stake in the Book of Mormon. This is your interpretation overlaid onto the text. (Lindey vice number 7).

For all of your talk about how the readers accept the text, you should know that the vast majority of readers have seen this as Abinadi being burnt at the stake. But what you say here is instrumental advice for you. That is, if you don't see burning at the stake, then you are overlaying your interpretation onto the text. But I respect your experience enough to not just make a drive-by claim about how you are approaching the text. Instead, I'll give you several reasons why I think you are doing this. First, context matters. This story supposedly takes place in ancient America with a Judaic people, but it has all the hallmarks of an early-modern, Christian, European event. I spent substantial time in my video making a similar point. Ancient Jews didn't burn each other for heresy. European Christians did. And they largely did it for heresies committed against the creeds. So when we see a heretic being burned for a non-creedal teaching about God, the context tells us that he was burned at the stake. To claim he wasn't burned at the stake is to ignore the contextual clues. So, really you need to say what is really happening in this story and why your interpretation is not you putting your own interpretation onto the text. (More response to come, but I need to break away for now.)

[Kenngo1969]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve always suspected that there was a nefarious use for bassoons.

I must admit, compared to Yours Truly, Scott (the protagonist in the short film linked above) is a Smooth, Suave, Debonair, Bassoon-Rockin' Lady Killer!   

Edited January 18, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[JarMan]

(continued from earlier)

So I mentioned the context of the story earlier. But we also have 1) the prisoner being bound, 2) the flames scorched him, 3) the use of faggots. Does the author really need to mention the word "stake" for us to know that's what's happening here. The only people I've heard argue this was not a good old burning at the stake are those who want the story to be less Christian and less European. In other words, they want to impose their own view onto a story in order to make it not anachronistic.

I mentioned the word "scourged" earlier, but I'll touch on it again. Skousen takes the view that the word should be "scorched" as in "scorched his skin with faggots" instead of "scourged his skin with faggots." The two sound very similar so a scribe could have easily mis-heard. Plus, "scorch" is used in the very next sentence. And in case you think it doesn't make sense to "scorch with faggots" since, technically the faggot just holds the flame, here's a similar phrase from a 1641 text: "felt the scorching of the fire and faggot". The word "faggot" was actually used pretty regularly as a metaphor to mean the method of execution or even the execution itself as in: "every true beleever lying on his death bed, or on the gridiron, or in the dungeon, or on the gibbet, or on the faggot" (1640) and "therefore hee flyes to the grosse and materiall instruments of unity, the sword and faggot" (1641) and "what kind of converts are those, whom rome from whatsoever heresie converteth by the faggot" (1641). This is actually an instance where knowledge of the early modern word use makes the text more understandable. 

The idea that his was some sort of ancient American torture doesn't add up. But it fits a stake-burning in every single detail. So, Ben, tell me why interpreting this story as not a stake-burning is not the very thing you accuse me of--imposing your own bias onto the text.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

That you are the first to notice this means that either the modern author of the text was incompetent as a writer (he failed to get his idea across to his readers for nearly two centuries) or that you are creating a reading that fits your own worldview and was unintended by the author. I mean, either one is possible I suppose.

As you've pointed out, readers bring their own ideas to a text. And like you, who pointed out that Calvin is not an evil autocrat, 19th Century Americans most likely wouldn't have made the connection to Noah because the portrayal of Calvin was mostly positive or neutral by then. I'm the first to notice this because I'm the first one who has taken the early modern hypothesis seriously enough to check it out. I have absolutely no reason to support this hypothesis, no preconceived notion, no faith to defend, no reason to accept anything except what my research finds. I don't think you can say the same thing. The idea that I'm trying to find something to confirm my worldview couldn't be further from the truth.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is bizarre from my perspective because the text of the Book of Mormon is clearly a 19th century text.

How much time have you spent considering whether it is a 17th Century text? I've been researching this idea for more than the last three years. Except for a portion of one sentence (which I hypothesize was added by Joseph) I cannot find anything in the Book of Mormon that is not related to 17th Century Europe. Seriously. I'll take all challenges on this. However, there are many things that don't fit well into 19th Century America. I'll give one example: kingship is a major theme in the Book of Mormon. How should a king rule? What makes a king good or bad? These were major issues in early modern Europe. There was a whole genre devoted to how kings should rule, with Machiavelli's the Prince being the best known work. The Book of Mormon addresses this implicitly by setting up a dichotomy with the three "good" kings of Zarahemla verses the three "bad" (or at least ineffective) kings of the Land of Nephi. Mosiah, Benjamin, Mosiah were your prototypical good kings. I have some really good material on this I can share later. Noah is the prototypical bad king snatched right out of early modern ideology. Kingship was not an issue in 19th Century America unless it was to surmise that all kingship was bad.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It couldn't be significantly earlier because it contains language that can be used to put an earliest date on it (and it isn't anywhere near 1640). The EModE theory doesn't cover the entire text of the Book of Mormon.

There are very, very few English words or phrases in the Book of Mormon that can't be found before 1640. Like less than about ten. And of course it's always possible the exceptions will be found as the available early modern corpora expands. Or they may not be found, but still have existed at the time. I doubt anyone could write something as long as the Book of Mormon without using any word or phrase that was less than 200 years old.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But this brings up a final issue. The Book of Mormon is not particularly opposed to Calvanism. Consider, for example, the fact that the Book of Mormon denies absolute agency for humanity. This means in some ways it is decidedly friendly to some aspects of Calvanism. This is part of the reason why I also noted that we were going to have some real disagreements about the interpretation of the text. The fact that I can interpret the text in key areas for your theory differently than you do does call into question that theory as much as the problem of alternate reasonable interpretations of the Noah-Abinadi narratives.

The Book of Mormon counters Calvinism in all the ways that Arminianism countered Calvinism in Europe in the early/mid 1600's--irresistible grace vs accepted grace; election vs free will; total depravity vs prevenient grace; limited atonement vs universal atonement; once-saved-always-saved vs perseverance. All of these themes play out in the Book of Mormon, which develops a coherent soteriology quite consistent with the Arminian view as it was defined in response to Calvinism in central and northern Europe, with the Synod of Dort being perhaps the most important event.

Edited January 18, 2023 by JarMan

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Nevo said:

But it's true that I don't find your theory convincing. King Noah is noted in the Book of Mormon for his many wives and concubines, riotous living, wine-bibbing, love of riches, idolatry, indolence, and oppressive taxation. John Calvin was a famously austere character, Noah's opposite in just about every way. So I don't see it.

Calvin's contemporary enemies were vicious in their descriptions of him. I've had a hard time finding English translations of these works, but I've found plenty of secondary and tertiary sources that describe what was written about him. Here are a few snippets:

Quote

The image of Calvin as either a sex maniac (astonishingly) or ruthless dictator originates chiefly in French Catholic reception of him in the sixteenth century

Quote

The riposte came from Jerome Bolsec in 1577, expelled from Geneva twenty-five years before, he had returned to France and to the Catholic church. His anti-Calvin life was very successful, supplying an arsenal for subsequent Catholic polemics, very much ad personam. This was that Calvin was an impostor, a rebel, a sodomite, a heretic, a lecher, a tyrant, Simon Magus reborn, that is, the embodiment of all heresy, and the cause of religious chaos in France.

Quote

Calvin, according to Bolsec, was irredeemably tedious and malicious, bloodthirsty and frustrated. He treated his own words as if they were the word of God, and allowed himself to be worshipped as God. In addition to frequently falling victim to his homosexual tendencies, he had a habit of indulging himself sexually with any female within walking distance.

 

Edited January 18, 2023 by JarMan

[Nevo]

23 hours ago, JarMan said:

Calvin's contemporary enemies were vicious in their descriptions of him. I've had a hard time finding English translations of these works, but I've found plenty of secondary and tertiary sources that describe what was written about him.

So I've read a bit of Bolsec now. My French is rusty, but I think I've picked up the main points. In the opening pages of his biography of Calvin, he describes him as the "enemy of God and of Christian unity" (i.e., a heretic) and as "ambitious, arrogant, cruel, malign, vindictive, and ignorant" (p. 5). Bolsec indicates that he was writing in reaction to the positive biography of Calvin by Theodore Beza, Calvin's disciple and successor. For example, against Beza's claim that "for at least ten years [Calvin] never dined, taking no food at all till supper" and "sometimes abstained from food for thirty-six hours in succession," Bolsec penned a chapter accusing Calvin of "frenzied gluttony" (see p. 56 and following). Bolsec's biography is the exact inverse of Beza's. His Calvin has no virtues whatsoever, only vices.

But I still don't see much overlap with Mormon's portrayal of Noah. Bolsec's bombshell (false) claim regarding Calvin's morals is that he was convicted of sodomy as a young man and branded on his shoulder (p. 16). No such charge is made against Noah or his priests. Noah and his priests have multiple wives and concubines, but only the priests are said to consort with prostitutes (Mosiah 11:4, 14). Unlike Noah, Calvin is not criticized for expensive public building projects (Mosiah 11: 8–13) or for planting vineyards and making wine in abundance (Mosiah 11:15). Noah, for his part, is not accused of heresy (Calvin's chief crime in the eyes of his opponents). 

The parallels between Servetus and Abinadi aren't strong either. Servetus was executed for denying Christ's godhood, whereas Abinadi was executed for affirming Christ's godhood as the Father and the Son who would come down to earth and live among mortals (Mosiah 15:1–4; 17:7–8). And the ostensible parallels between Servetus's and Abinadi's manner of death (both burned at the stake for heresy) start to look a lot less impressive the more you look at the details. 

Quote

Two works on the Trinity published by Servetus in 1531 and 1532 had already brought him in trouble. His views were condemned by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike, so Servetus went into hiding under the name Michael Villanovanus, after his birthplace Villanueva in Spain. While in Lyon, he exchanged letters with Calvin on the Trinity, until these became repetitious.

In January 1553, Servetus’s final book was published anonymously in Vienne: Christianismi Restitutio (Restoration of Christianity). The identity of the author was easily uncovered, however. Calvin used Servetus’s publication to plead the case for five Calvinist pastors that were arrested in Lyon in 1552, posing the question to the French authorities and the Inquisition how five orthodox Protestants could be condemned as guilty of heresy, when a physician in Vienne (not far from Lyon) could publish such a heretical work.

Servetus was arrested and questioned by the Inquisition, but he managed to escape from prison. In absentia, Servetus was declared guilty of scandalous heresy, sedition, rebellion, and evasion of prison. Capital punishment was executed in effigie: a picture of Servetus was burned. Next, Servetus appeared in Geneva, where he was recognized by Calvin during an afternoon Sunday service. After several examinations by the civil authorities, a debate between Calvin and Servetus, and a consultation of the other Swiss cities, Servetus was found guilty of antitrinitarianism and Anabaptism. During the trial, Servetus refused to be extradited to Vienne, but preferred to be tried in Geneva. Calvin’s plea for the more humane decapitation was denied by the authorities and on October 27, 1553, Servetus was burned at the stake.

Although in popular imagery, the burning of Servetus in 1553 has often served as the ultimate example of Calvin’s cruelty, Servetus would in fact have suffered the same fate elsewhere in Europe, the trial was a secular proceeding by a Genevan administration that was mostly hostile to Calvin at the time, and failure to punish Servetus would have caused Geneva enormous damage. Because antitrinitarianism was punishable by imperial law, Geneva would have put itself on the map as a second Münster if the verdict had been different from the verdict passed in Vienne.

— Arnold Huijgen, "The Challenge of Heresy: Servetus, Stancaro, and Castellio," in John Calvin in Context, ed. R. Ward Holder (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 260–261.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Nevo

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

So I've read a bit of Bolsec now. My French is rusty, but I think I've picked up the main points. In the opening pages of his biography of Calvin, he describes him as the "enemy of God and of Christian unity" (i.e., a heretic) and as "ambitious, arrogant, cruel, malign, vindictive, and ignorant" (p. 5). Bolsec indicates that he was writing in reaction to the positive biography of Calvin by Theodore Beza, Calvin's disciple and successor. For example, against Beza's claim that "for at least ten years [Calvin] never dined, taking no food at all till supper" and "sometimes abstained from food for thirty-six hours in succession," Bolsec penned a chapter accusing Calvin of "frenzied gluttony" (see p. 56 and following). Bolsec's biography is the exact inverse of Beza's. His Calvin has no virtues whatsoever, only vices.

But I still don't see much overlap with Mormon's portrayal of Noah. Bolsec's bombshell (false) claim regarding Calvin's morals is that he was convicted of sodomy as a young man and branded on his shoulder (p. 16). No such charge is made against Noah or his priests. Noah and his priests have multiple wives and concubines, but only the priests are said to consort with prostitutes (Mosiah 11:4, 14). Unlike Noah, Calvin is not criticized for expensive public building projects (Mosiah 11: 8–13) or for planting vineyards and making wine in abundance (Mosiah 11:15). Noah, for his part, is not accused of heresy (Calvin's chief crime in the eyes of his opponents). 

So, there are a few things going on with the portrayal of Noah. His primary literary function is to be the prototypical bad king. Noah and the previous two kings, Zeniff and Limhi, are meant to stand in stark contrast to the trio of prototypical good kings in Zarahemla: Mosiah, Benjamin, and Mosiah. This is in line with the early modern "mirrors for princes" genre. Machiavelli's The Prince came very early, but is atypical of the genre as a whole which generally promoted holiness, selflessness, soberness, low taxes, etc. The context of the story puts Calvin's face onto this caricature epitomizing bad princes. The message is clear: Calvin is a bad prince. Whether he masturbated with his left hand or his right is not that relevant.

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

The parallels between Servetus and Abinadi aren't strong either. Servetus was executed for denying Christ's godhood, whereas Abinadi was executed for affirming Christ's godhood as the Father and the Son who would come down to earth and live among mortals (Mosiah 15:1–4; 17:7–8). And the ostensible parallels between Servetus's and Abinadi's manner of death (both burned at the stake for heresy) start to look a lot less impressive the more you look at the details. 

Look, there's really not a lot you can learn about the details of Servetus' story with a quick google search. Particularly since the top results are overwhelmingly friendly towards Calvin and critical of Servetus. I made several subtle snide jokes about that in the text boxes of my presentation. You really need to read Servetus' work, his biographies, and the commentary. Not everyone agrees on exactly what he was teaching. And his writing is pretty hard to follow in places. But once you wade through all of this, it's pretty clear that Servetus was essentially teaching a form of modalism. He believed that before he was born to Mary, Christ was the Father who had created the earth and all things. Then he came down and took on human form as Jesus. So the Father/Creator was the very same personage as Christ, but in a different form or mode. This was clearly contrary to the trinity of the Nicene Creed. But it is perfectly consistent with Abinadi's teaching, Mosiah 13:34:

Quote

Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

He repeats in Mosiah 15:1

Quote

And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

The sentencing cites this very teaching as the reason he is being executed, Mosiah 17:8:

Quote

For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.

So, the heresies of Servetus and Abinadi are really close matches. Servetus was charged with a secondary heresy, which was opposing infant baptism. Abinadi touches on this subject, if briefly, in Mosiah 15:25:

Quote

And little children also have eternal life.

There are actually a lot more doctrinal details to go in to. For example, Calvin and Servetus discuss their different interpretations of Isaiah 53 during the trial. Calvin claims that the suffering servant referred to is Christ. Servetus believes it has a dual meaning: one meaning is relevant to Isaiah's own time, and the other meaning was a prophecy of Christ meant be be understood by later generations.

Then we have Abinadi reciting Isaiah 53 in its entirety to Noah and his priests during his hearing. He does this to support his assertion that the scriptures testify of Christ. My proposed BOM author also saw this chapter as having a dual meaning. So I think he's making a conscious argument to the critics of this idea, that what matters most about Isaiah 53 is that it does indeed testify of Christ's coming. I plan to get into more of this doctrinal stuff in a part 2 presentation.

Edited January 19, 2023 by JarMan

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Noah and the previous two kings, Zeniff and Limhi, are meant to stand in stark contrast to the trio of prototypical good kings in Zarahemla: Mosiah, Benjamin, and Mosiah.

While Noah was horrendous, Zeniff and Limhi are portrayed as good men, so how is that a stark contrast?

[JarMan]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

While Noah was horrendous, Zeniff and Limhi are portrayed as good men, so how is that a stark contrast?

There are many ways to be a bad king. Being evil is one way and that was Noah's primary fault. But the other two kings had their faults. They were hot-headed or over-zealous or gullible or weak or ineffective leaders.

[Kenngo1969]

The only things more preposterous than the account of Book of Mormon origins given by Joseph Smith, Jr., are all of the alternate explanations that deny the book's supernatural origins.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 1/17/2023 at 9:37 PM, JarMan said:

You are making assumptions about my approach that I don't think are warranted. I would ask that you assume both a good faith effort and careful work on my part.

Look - I don't doubt that you have done what you believe is careful work in your approach to the text of the Book of Mormon. Over the decades, I have reviewed dozens and dozens of articles submitted for publication in Mormon themed journals (for Interpreter, for the Maxwell Institute, and so on). I offer negative feedback for most of the submissions that involve comparisons of some sort. Why? Because there are appropriate ways to make comparisons and there are inappropriate ways to make comparisons. The inappropriate ways are more intuitive. And for most people who find similarities that they want to compare, the basic starting point is that they know it when they see it. But this isn't how things actually work. When we deal with topics of comparison (whether it is comparative literature or comparative religion or any of a bunch of related topics), most people get it wrong. And what I have seen from you misses the underlying issues that separate good research from bad research.

This isn't about the belief set. It isn't about the conclusions. It is all about the method. Can you articulate your method? Can you explain why your theory of the meaning of the text is better than someone else's theory? When you simply give similarities and ignore the differences, you engage in a fallacious form of comparison that has been rejected by practitioners of these fields of comparative study for a very long time. So it isn't about the care that you have put into it - its about the fact that you have started from a position which cannot provide you with the certainty that you have arrived at - because you aren't actually dealing with all of the evidence and you aren't evaluating your own evidence appropriately.

There is a book I have been thinking about picking up at a local thrift store lately. I doubt that I will get it. I have thousands of volumes in my library and not enough shelf space - which means I get a little picky. This book is a self-published volume on a 'perpetual energy' machine. It makes the claim in its introduction, that the author's ideas have been repressed by industry and politicians because of what it would do to the energy sector in the economy. I love these kinds of books because it is fun for me to diagnose where they go wrong (and of course, the whole conspiracy theory can be fun to read). Should I take it seriously? I don't feel obligated to do so. I run into this problem with claims like yours. Should I take it seriously? A few years back, the Johnson brothers published on the internet their claim that the Book of Mormon stole a lot of material from the Late War. The argument was flawed. But, as I pointed out in my review, it wasn't the comparison with the Book of Mormon that was the most startling part of their claim. It was the claim of reliance of a novel by Jane Austen on an obscure book - determined by their process. This is what I wrote:

Quote

 

One thing that stands out to me is the statement about Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. On the basis of their weighting system they connect this book to a relatively unknown work from 1810: The Officer’s Daughter. Jane Austen [Page 351]is considered one of the most influential novelists of the modern era. This would be the first time that this connection has been offered, and it’s being offered on the basis of an electronic search engine!

There is no evidence that this work was ever read by Jane Austen. In fact, just this year, Cambridge University Press released The Cambridge Companion to ‘Pride and Prejudice‘, in which we get details about the text, its narrative and characters, its philosophy, its composition and publication, even its historical background and literary context. Nowhere in that volume will we find a reference to Miss Walsh’s The Officer’s Daughter. For an author who wasn’t very “influenced by her literary culture,” an awful lot has been written about that culture and its influence. We actually know a great deal about Jane Austen and her literary influences. Part of this is due to the fact that literary scholars and historians have been discussing and detailing her achievements in terms of the relationship she had with prior literature since the mid-twentieth century (really beginning with the work of F. W. Bradbrook and Jocelyn Harris). For Austen, this interaction was often very deliberate – we know this not just from her books, but from the many letters that she wrote which detailed her own reading and re-reading. She tells us who her favorite authors were and why. And this is why we might be a bit startled to find out how this book, which she apparently never read, was in fact the most significant influence on her own writing.

 

I realize that this is a bit more narrative than perhaps you were looking for - but I am trying to illustrate my point. I haven't really gotten in the specific claims you are making in any detail - not because I intend to brush them off but because the primary issues I encounter occur long before we get to those details. Your method when applied to the material you have chosen makes a lot of sense to you. I can use that same method and apply it to other material and create nonsensical comparisons. And this means that the method is problematic (not that the comparison is invalid). And the method's problems have to be corrected before we can start to take the rest of it seriously. I believe you when you say you are making a good faith effort. But I am also absolutely certain that you cannot provide me with a useful comparison without changing your fundamental process.

4 hours ago, JarMan said:

So, the heresies of Servetus and Abinadi are really close matches. Servetus was charged with a secondary heresy, which was opposing infant baptism. Abinadi touches on this subject, if briefly, in Mosiah 15:25:

Vices 2 and 5:

2. Parallels are too readily susceptible of manipulation. Superficial resemblances may be made to appear as of the essence.
5. Parallel columns operate piecemeal. They wrench phrases and passages out of context. A product of the imagination is indivisible. It depends on totality of effect. To remove details from their setting is to falsify them.

One of the fascinating things about Mosiah 15 is that it can be interpreted in many different ways. I am going to emphasize this idea of interpretation because in comparison you make, you don't merely compare the two traditions, you compare interpretations of the two traditions. Mosiah 15 is an interesting text for a couple of reasons. Not only do we get the text there, but we also get an interpretation of that text in Alma 42. But let's start with Mosiah 15. And before I process part of that Chapter, let me quote a brief excerpt from the Statement of Faith from Chalcedon:

Quote

So, following the saintly fathers, we all with one voice teach the confession of one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from Mary, the virgin God-bearer as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the fathers handed it down to us.

One person, with two natures. Our problem in reading Mosiah 15 is that we often make this assumption that by "Father" and "Son" we refer to our own idea of the Godhead - God the Father and God the Son. But this text in Mosiah, if I take the Mosiah material and I substitute these two natures into it (from the statement from Chalcedon), it reads very differently for us. So, everywhere it says "Son" I am going to use "truly man" or "true man" and everywhere it says "Father" I am going to use "truly God" or "true God":

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the eternal God, being truly God and truly man
3 Truly God, because he was conceived by the power of God; and truly man, because of the flesh; thus becoming true God and true man
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

You can see here that by “God” in verse 1, Abinadi is talking about Jesus Christ. And from there he explains these two natures – trying to explain how Jesus is both God (like the Father) and man (like us) So Abinadi continues:

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the true man to the true God, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the true man being swallowed up in the will of the true God.
8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the true man power to make intercession for the children of men

This isn't really all that much like Servetus (and, I do have a couple of volumes on Servetus in my library - so if you want to discuss his description of the nature of God, the nature of Christ, and the errors of the trinity, I am certainly open to it).

Then we get the issue of original sin (and related subjects). Mosiah 15 mentions it briefly. In 2 Nephi we get a discussion about the limited nature of human agency. The Book of Mormon doesn't deny the idea of original sin (the concept really doesn't get a lot of discussion in the Book of Mormon. It is, in fact, indifferent to the idea. Why do I suggest this? Because the Book of Mormon suggests that the atonement covers all sins indiscriminately except for those sins committed deliberately through human agency. Little children do not have agency - so whatever sins they may commit or whatever state they may be is simply corrected through the atonement. Adults who sin through ignorance? Fixed by the atonement. People who sin because of the actions of others? Fixed by the atonement. The Book of Mormon advances a theory of limited agency, arguing that only after the final judgment and the resurrection can humanity achieve absolute free agency.

Where is all of this in Servetus?

The Book of Mormon's theology is complex at times - and only by asserting that X, Y, and Z are the most essential parts of that theology can you make the argument that there is a similarity between the two. I don't agree with you - and it isn't hard to start listing all of the differences to the point that it is clear that the Book of Mormon's theological message is not consistent with Servetus - to the point that suggesting that it is based on Servetus seems more than just a little problematic.

So were Abinadi and Servetus executed for the same things? No. And let's not forget that there is a larger context. In many ways, the Book of Mormon in particular suggests that the crimes for which Abinadi was executed were simply the legal excuse. The real reason for his execution was the fact that he was telling the people that the king and the king's priests were wicked. We could say that this was true of Servetus, but it doesn't really fit that context quite as well.

In the long run, again, it's about method though, and not about content yet. And what you are doing can be labeled parallelomania.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, JarMan said:

There are many ways to be a bad king. Being evil is one way and that was Noah's primary fault. But the other two kings had their faults. They were hot-headed or over-zealous or gullible or weak or ineffective leaders.

I don't disagree with you. However, the list of the faults of King Noah primarily engage the specific list of sins outlined in what is called the Kingship Code of Deuteronomy 17. And, we have some sense of the accurateness of this proposition because of the references in the narrative to Deuteronomy 18, discussing priests and prophets.

But this isn't all, right? Abinadi himself is directly compared in the text with Moses. And as Moses, he delivers the 10 commandments to Noah and his priests:

Quote

Now it came to pass after Abinadi had spoken these words that the people of king Noah durst not lay their hands on him, for the Spirit of the Lord was upon him; and his face shone with exceeding luster, even as Moses’ did while in the mount of Sinai, while speaking with the Lord. ... And now I read unto you the remainder of the commandments of God, for I perceive that they are not written in your hearts; I perceive that ye have studied and taught iniquity the most part of your lives. (Mos. 13:5, 11)

The part about being written in their hears comes from Jeremiah 31. But that's not all that important here. What is important is that Abinadi takes on the appearance of Moses and then reads to the people the 10 commandments (just as Moses did). And this reminds us (or at least its supposed to remind us) of Deuteronomy 18:18-19 - which is a favorite Old Testament passage in the Book of Mormon:

Quote

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.

And here, we get other references from the account of Abinadi, right? Mosiah 13:2-4 reads:

Quote

And they stood forth and attempted to lay their hands on him; but he withstood them, and said unto them: Touch me not, for God shall smite you if ye lay your hands upon me, for I have not delivered the message which the Lord sent me to deliver; neither have I told you that which ye requested that I should tell; therefore, God will not suffer that I shall be destroyed at this time. But I must fulfil the commandments wherewith God has commanded me; and because I have told you the truth ye are angry with me. And again, because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad.

This is also portraying Abinadi as a Moses figure. Not a servetus figure, but a Moses figure. And this creates problems for your interpretive model (which is, perhaps, why you ignore it)., The difference matter more than the similarities. We can always find similarities. It is the differences we have to explain to make the similarities valuable.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Nevo]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

Look, there's really not a lot you can learn about the details of Servetus' story with a quick google search.

It was a bit more than a quick Google search. I consulted two general histories of the Reformation, a dozen articles from two collections of recent Calvin scholarship, two other books, and two primary sources (one in French). But you're correct that I haven't done a deep dive into Servetus's thought.

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

You really need to read Servetus' work, his biographies, and the commentary. Not everyone agrees on exactly what he was teaching. And his writing is pretty hard to follow in places. But once you wade through all of this, it's pretty clear that Servetus was essentially teaching a form of modalism.

Any particular works, biographies, or commentary you recommend? I don't disagree that Servetus taught a form of modalism, but I'd prefer to see actual quotes for the specifics. So far you haven't provided any. A close comparison of Servetus's and Abinadi's teachings would be helpful. You'll forgive me if I don't simply take your word for it that they are "perfectly consistent."

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

I plan to get into more of this doctrinal stuff in a part 2 presentation.

Good. I look forward to seeing a responsible, careful analysis. 

To be honest, I thought some of your historical claims in the first video were pretty questionable. E.g., "Calvin developed an intense personal hatred for [Servetus] . . . and vowed to kill him if he ever came to Geneva. . . . Calvin plotted his death . . . made good on his promise and burned Servetus at the stake."

Calvin scholar Richard Gamble offers a very different historical assessment:

Quote

In 1531, Servetus published his first book, entitled On the Trinity, which was roundly condemned by the reformers. Nevertheless, in that same decade, Calvin made a special trip to Paris to meet with Servetus, to, as Calvin recalled, “gain him for the Lord.” However, Servetus failed to show up for the meeting. We must remember that Calvin’s trip to Paris was made at great risk. He had been condemned to death in France, and Calvin put his very life on the line. However, Calvin considered a theological reconciliation with Servetus to be sufficiently important.

Communication between Calvin and Servetus continued into the forties. As one reads the letters, it is easy to get the distinct impression that there was something seriously wrong with Servetus, mentally. One outstanding Calvin scholar has found it hard to believe that Servetus was completely sane at that time. In the 1550s, Servetus’ pen was again active, this time authoring The Restoration of Christianity; this work was condemned as blasphemous and heretical by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike.

Servetus had been arrested by the Roman Catholic authorities in France and condemned to death as a heretic, but he escaped from jail. For some very strange reason Servetus travelled to Geneva and was sitting in the congregation when Calvin was preaching. He was recognized, and the city magistrates had him arrested. Previously, Calvin had warned Servetus that his safety could not be guaranteed in the city of Geneva. . . . 

Although Calvin approved of the death sentence, as did all Protestants at the time, he was not legally responsible for the execution of Servetus; only the city magistrates could perform such acts. . . . Calvin was persistent in his personal appeals to Servetus that he change his mind as he visited him in prison. Calvin furthermore requested that Servetus’ sentence be reduced from burning to beheading, a much more humane means of execution, but that request was denied by the city authorities.

— Richard C. Gamble, "Calvin's Controversies," in The Cambridge Companion to John Calvin, ed. Donald K. Kim (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 197–198.

Now Gamble himself is a Calvinist, and he is clearly wearing his apologist hat here, but these data points complicate your simple narrative.

(Even Jerome Bolsec, who hated Calvin with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, admitted that Servetus was a lot ("Ce Servet estoit à la verité arrogant & insolent.")

Edited January 19, 2023 by Nevo

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

We can always find similarities. It is the differences we have to explain to make the similarities valuable.

This needs at least another repeat, and it really should be in bold, in flashing neon, if possible.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The only things more preposterous than the account of Book of Mormon origins given by Joseph Smith, Jr., are all of the alternate explanations that deny the book's supernatural origins.

....which, naturally, always come through a wobbly liahona: the human brain.

There's a book title for an LDS cognitive scientist: The Wobbly Liahona.

Edited January 19, 2023 by mfbukowski

[JarMan]

I have limited time at the moment, but I want to partially respond to @Benjamin McGuire regarding purpose and methodology. I think you are making assumptions about what I'm doing here based on your experience, which is completely understandable. Now I'm going to return the favor and read your mind here. I think you see me as a critic whose purpose in doing this exercise is to "prove" the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon. You think I've looked at a historical event that had some superficial similarities with a story in the Book of Mormon and then mined the information to pick out some similarities that I could package together in a way that made two stories look the same. All the while I've been selective in describing the parallels while ignoring the differences. I haven't been completely sincere in the way I've told the stories, but twisted both of them just enough to make key facts line up. I'm so dead set on "disproving" the Book of Mormon as scripture that I have a biased approach that feeds on confirmation bias.

I get that you've seen that approach before so you're naturally weary about what I'm saying. Give me an honest chance here to let me very briefly (I can give more detail when I have time) disabuse you of those ideas that I magically plucked out of your mind. First off, this project started three to four years ago when I was an active member who believed the Book of Mormon to be "true." I had the view that as Joseph "translated" the plates, somehow the stories mingled with things in his mind and we ended up with historical events combined with JS's milieu. In other words, I had a pretty standard view found among various scholars including people on this board. I was very impressed by the work of Skousen and Carmack and decided to test whether we could see signs of an early modern milieu in the Book of Mormon. Maybe there was an additional translation or production event involving an early modern "prophet" that left pieces of his mind and world in the text.

Well, I found a lot of markers in the BOM that looked a lot like early modern Europe. For a year or more I kept looking while trying to develop a model of a "true" BOM that involved some sort of early modern intervention in the production of the text. Eventually I abandoned my religious beliefs for a variety of reasons, but I kept my project going. I developed a hypothesis that the BOM was produced between about 1635 and 1645 based on several markers in the text that I could tie to that time. So now I have been continuing my work trying to test this hypothesis. A major approach to this has been trying to falsify it. I've solicited input on this board probably a dozen times for things within the Book of Mormon that would show it wasn't produced in about 1640. I did that again earlier in this thread and I'll do it again now. I don't see Dan Vogel doing the same for his hypothesis. I certainly don't see apologists doing that. In fact I don't see any other Book of Mormon enthusiast actively trying to do it. Are you?

Since my interest and pursuance of this project has spanned a period of belief and non-belief, I can show that I'm not motivated here by either belief or non-belief. I am not trying to "disprove" the Book of Mormon or its divine provenance or Mormonism in general or religion. I'm simply pursuing an academic interest. If I have any audience in mind, it's really those who agree with Vogel's view. Eventually I would like to get this out to a wider community of historical scholars who are trained in early modern history. So that's a high level view of what I'm trying to do.